Right, so make sure that the poor, working class bears an equal burden to the absurdly rich. That makes sense.
Flat taxes are inherently regressive. The wealthy benefit more and have earned a great deal based on the public, on society. They should pay in proportion. Not a flat rate, not a flat payment. Or better yet, move to a land value tax like the georgists suggest, and have a 100% efficient tax that has a social benefit.
This is pretty opposite the reality. According to our most modern economic models and theories, currency pegs push jobs overseas, not unions (same accused mechanism, but if you understand currency pegs, you would know local wages do not impact trade, only currency manipulation can do that). Unions are just concentrated power of labor v. concentrated power of big business. They are weak and small, they have far less power than their opponents.
Sure, corporate subsidies should be reduced and restructured so that they only exist if they serve a specific purpose that the public approves of and which will provide long term gains to America. For example, converting to stable energy price renewable energy sources.
Minimum wage only reduces jobs when wages are at parity with productivity, which hasn't been the case since 1980. If wages aren't at that level, then consumer demand is suppressed and cash is being concentrated and hoarded by the wealthy.
Property rights are government granted protections, in a true anarchocapitalist society, property rights are only valid if you are defending them or can pay to defend them. Workplace safety rules save lives. You are profoundly ignorant of the economics here.
And people can apply to jobs not posted to the public how? Insider connections and that is it. Doesn't really work, doesn't change the argument.
Poverty is still structural. We can give people enough to survive with a basic income, and they tend to survive and find ways to occupy their time that are useful to society. Helping individuals with a great amount of effort one at a time is extremely costly. Worthwhile, but still costly. I say we help people absolutely, I'm not saying we shouldn't, but poverty is still caused by market structures, and giving aid to individuals is not going to change that market structure.
I've had this exact debate with about 2 dozen people equally as confident as you, equally as totally unaware of the reality. It is market consolidation, currency pegs which decouple productivity increases from wages which cause a drop in consumer demand and divorce automation from increased quality of life. Nothing else, otherwise it would be true for every other technology that automates away jobs for the past 8000 years.
The number of people looking for jobs has outnumbered the number of job openings (Unemployed:job opening) since the 1980s. At no point has that ratio been below 1.2, and it has been as high as 9 in the recent recession. Do you know what that means? That if every single job opening was filled tomorrow, we would STILL have millions of people searching for jobs with no job openings to apply to.
This isn't ignorance, it is an unavoidable, mathematical reality. Poverty is structural, not individual. And if you look into those things, you would quickly find that indeed, those job either 1. Don't exist, 2. Pay too little to attract workers, 3. out outside of the transportation range/ability of the unemployed and thus unattainable. Even if your shit argument was right, it would still be wrong.
If they aren't being disadvantaged, then we need to revisit the statistics on IQ and intelligence, which show that the male bell curve is to the right (slightly higher) than the female bell curve, so we would expect men to outpace women in education by about 5%. Instead, we see exactly the opposite. The rapidly lack of male teachers in primary school could be a part of it, as several studies have suggested, but clearly it is a lot more vast a problem than that.
Exactly what you just said was equally as true in 800 BC every time somebody invented a new farming technology.
We aren't growing jobs because instead of the extra production going to workers and being spent, it is going to the wealthy and being hoarded, no increase in consumer demand, no new markets, no new jobs. If you knew how to read, you wouldn't have posted that shit.
Consolidation is ALWAYS a factor, regardless of automation, it happens naturally, and it doesn't have to even in a very high tech economy. It is the opposite of inevitable.
Historically, this is false. Automation just increases worker productivity as last step automation is always more expensive and so non-cost effective as to be permanently pointless and prohibitive.
From the period 1936 to 1970, wages rose with productivity in a perfect correlation, as they are expected to in all fair markets, those higher wages turn into consumer demand, which spawns new markets, creates new jobs, keeps the markets growing. If it didn't work that way, we wouldn't have progressed since 50k years ago whatsoever.
Unemployment, low wages are caused by market structure, consolidation, currency pegs/manipulation, etc. Not by automation. So long as we have a market structure that creates massive unemployment, we need welfare to deal with it. If we don't, then we are forcibly killing people. Laziness has never been a problem.
So disadvantage young men to correct a percieved wrong among current adults? That is just swinging the pendulum the other way, not trying to balance.
It also isn't true, if you adjust for industry and experience, women make about as much as men within the margin of error, working at the same levels in the same places as men with the same experience. They don't have to have any more education to achieve the same level in industry.
If he was refering to the fact that girls now have substantial advantage over boys (over 20% advantage throughout elementary, middle, and high school) and at college entrance, then he would be correct, and very serious. The only area of education not dominated by women in the past ten years is STEM, and men are also far behind women in biology & related sciences, and math, leaving really only computer science and the engineering fields, and physics to men. Every other degree has at least 65% women, far outpacing men.
I for one would prefer a system that is gender neutral and doesn't discriminate, seeks to empower all students at all levels in all disciplines, and let students choose their own path, I'd rather the gender boxes disappear altogether and people become free to set their own path in life, whatever their gender.
Maybe in your neck of the woods, but in the big city there is *always* a giant demand for hideous fat asses as well. Even the worst looking, unfashionable, stupid, fat women I knew couldn't go on public transit without getting 5 guys numbers.
Only the people and the government are not the same thing. If a cop asks me to do something without just cause it is my constitutional right to refuse, if the government refuses to give the people information, they are impeding democracy, covering up the truth, and failing to be an open democracy.
So make it pass a drivers test? Maybe a couple dozen? Send it cross country a few times to prove it can handle an enormous variety of situations? Sounds like what they are already aiming to do.
If you are a woman, you just go to any dive bar where you are unlikely to see anybody you know, maybe a town over to meet somebody, or do so discretely in other ways. Given that most women have an endless stream of men drooling after them, it is trivial for them to cheat, whereas for men it is very difficult and takes a lot of effort to find somebody. This is the expected results.
A taxi is providing a service, a self driving car is your property. When we let someone's own property hurt them for the state or other 3rd parties, we have thrown the laws or robotics out the window and pose a threat to the safety and individual freedoms and civil liberties of humans, including their own physical ability to do wrong and face the consequences, a disturbing implication.
Studies consistently show no measurable competition when fewer than 5 companies hold more than a combined 70% of market share, there simply isn't enough competitive force to push supply and demand to regulate prices. What you are talking about is nothing more than an extreme fringe.
And our modern economic models that take into consideration imperfect competition, game theory, complex systems theory do profoundly well at predicting what will happen even along several year time spans. You are objectively wrong.
We have studies that show there is no market competition with fewer than 5 choices holding more than 70% of market share. Freedom and choices are a lot more limited than you are imagining, both theoretically and practically.
Which is why consumer survey's showed that 85% of consumers preferred low gloss/matte screens but over 95% of screens made were high gloss, a problem that has existed for MUCH too long.
I take several nootropics that have side effects of fighting substance dependence and addictive behaviors, just by coincidence. I'm not addicted to food. I only eat when I'm hungry, and generally only enough to get a satisfied feeling out of my stomach. But my genetic bar must be set far higher than most for that level, because it takes a lot more than it should to get there, even eating slowly.
I can, and have, radically changed most of my behavior patterns in life. I've meditated, become more productive, changed wide areas of my lifestyle, but it doesn't change that genetic set point for weight and appetite. I could be hungry constantly, but then I couldn't focus, would lose my job, my apartment, and lose weight by being homeless, but I'm not liking that option.
I also don't keep junk food in the house, I don't eat it at all, haven't in years. Hasn't made a difference.
Slashdot Mirror
you still have the option to uninstall those updates and choose updates manually in windows 7/8. Something you can't do in windows 10. So no.
Right, so make sure that the poor, working class bears an equal burden to the absurdly rich. That makes sense.
Flat taxes are inherently regressive. The wealthy benefit more and have earned a great deal based on the public, on society. They should pay in proportion. Not a flat rate, not a flat payment. Or better yet, move to a land value tax like the georgists suggest, and have a 100% efficient tax that has a social benefit.
reminds me of this
Well, if that doubtful day ever comes, then yes, we should move to full basic income and tax the fuck out of the companies that have no workers.
This is pretty opposite the reality. According to our most modern economic models and theories, currency pegs push jobs overseas, not unions (same accused mechanism, but if you understand currency pegs, you would know local wages do not impact trade, only currency manipulation can do that). Unions are just concentrated power of labor v. concentrated power of big business. They are weak and small, they have far less power than their opponents.
Sure, corporate subsidies should be reduced and restructured so that they only exist if they serve a specific purpose that the public approves of and which will provide long term gains to America. For example, converting to stable energy price renewable energy sources.
Minimum wage only reduces jobs when wages are at parity with productivity, which hasn't been the case since 1980. If wages aren't at that level, then consumer demand is suppressed and cash is being concentrated and hoarded by the wealthy.
Property rights are government granted protections, in a true anarchocapitalist society, property rights are only valid if you are defending them or can pay to defend them. Workplace safety rules save lives. You are profoundly ignorant of the economics here.
And people can apply to jobs not posted to the public how? Insider connections and that is it. Doesn't really work, doesn't change the argument. Poverty is still structural. We can give people enough to survive with a basic income, and they tend to survive and find ways to occupy their time that are useful to society. Helping individuals with a great amount of effort one at a time is extremely costly. Worthwhile, but still costly. I say we help people absolutely, I'm not saying we shouldn't, but poverty is still caused by market structures, and giving aid to individuals is not going to change that market structure.
I've had this exact debate with about 2 dozen people equally as confident as you, equally as totally unaware of the reality. It is market consolidation, currency pegs which decouple productivity increases from wages which cause a drop in consumer demand and divorce automation from increased quality of life. Nothing else, otherwise it would be true for every other technology that automates away jobs for the past 8000 years.
The number of people looking for jobs has outnumbered the number of job openings (Unemployed:job opening) since the 1980s. At no point has that ratio been below 1.2, and it has been as high as 9 in the recent recession. Do you know what that means? That if every single job opening was filled tomorrow, we would STILL have millions of people searching for jobs with no job openings to apply to.
This isn't ignorance, it is an unavoidable, mathematical reality. Poverty is structural, not individual. And if you look into those things, you would quickly find that indeed, those job either 1. Don't exist, 2. Pay too little to attract workers, 3. out outside of the transportation range/ability of the unemployed and thus unattainable. Even if your shit argument was right, it would still be wrong.
If they aren't being disadvantaged, then we need to revisit the statistics on IQ and intelligence, which show that the male bell curve is to the right (slightly higher) than the female bell curve, so we would expect men to outpace women in education by about 5%. Instead, we see exactly the opposite. The rapidly lack of male teachers in primary school could be a part of it, as several studies have suggested, but clearly it is a lot more vast a problem than that.
Exactly what you just said was equally as true in 800 BC every time somebody invented a new farming technology.
We aren't growing jobs because instead of the extra production going to workers and being spent, it is going to the wealthy and being hoarded, no increase in consumer demand, no new markets, no new jobs. If you knew how to read, you wouldn't have posted that shit.
Consolidation is ALWAYS a factor, regardless of automation, it happens naturally, and it doesn't have to even in a very high tech economy. It is the opposite of inevitable.
Historically, this is false. Automation just increases worker productivity as last step automation is always more expensive and so non-cost effective as to be permanently pointless and prohibitive. From the period 1936 to 1970, wages rose with productivity in a perfect correlation, as they are expected to in all fair markets, those higher wages turn into consumer demand, which spawns new markets, creates new jobs, keeps the markets growing. If it didn't work that way, we wouldn't have progressed since 50k years ago whatsoever. Unemployment, low wages are caused by market structure, consolidation, currency pegs/manipulation, etc. Not by automation. So long as we have a market structure that creates massive unemployment, we need welfare to deal with it. If we don't, then we are forcibly killing people. Laziness has never been a problem.
So disadvantage young men to correct a percieved wrong among current adults? That is just swinging the pendulum the other way, not trying to balance. It also isn't true, if you adjust for industry and experience, women make about as much as men within the margin of error, working at the same levels in the same places as men with the same experience. They don't have to have any more education to achieve the same level in industry.
absolutely agree, and well said.
If he was refering to the fact that girls now have substantial advantage over boys (over 20% advantage throughout elementary, middle, and high school) and at college entrance, then he would be correct, and very serious. The only area of education not dominated by women in the past ten years is STEM, and men are also far behind women in biology & related sciences, and math, leaving really only computer science and the engineering fields, and physics to men. Every other degree has at least 65% women, far outpacing men. I for one would prefer a system that is gender neutral and doesn't discriminate, seeks to empower all students at all levels in all disciplines, and let students choose their own path, I'd rather the gender boxes disappear altogether and people become free to set their own path in life, whatever their gender.
Actually you have roughly 20 million neural networks in the brain.
That was what I was looking for the entire article, too bad they didn't. As for the space whiskey, it sounds atrocious.
Maybe in your neck of the woods, but in the big city there is *always* a giant demand for hideous fat asses as well. Even the worst looking, unfashionable, stupid, fat women I knew couldn't go on public transit without getting 5 guys numbers.
Only the people and the government are not the same thing. If a cop asks me to do something without just cause it is my constitutional right to refuse, if the government refuses to give the people information, they are impeding democracy, covering up the truth, and failing to be an open democracy.
I think it was supposed to be sarcasm that was lost on those who modded "insightful"
So make it pass a drivers test? Maybe a couple dozen? Send it cross country a few times to prove it can handle an enormous variety of situations? Sounds like what they are already aiming to do.
If you are a woman, you just go to any dive bar where you are unlikely to see anybody you know, maybe a town over to meet somebody, or do so discretely in other ways. Given that most women have an endless stream of men drooling after them, it is trivial for them to cheat, whereas for men it is very difficult and takes a lot of effort to find somebody. This is the expected results.
A taxi is providing a service, a self driving car is your property. When we let someone's own property hurt them for the state or other 3rd parties, we have thrown the laws or robotics out the window and pose a threat to the safety and individual freedoms and civil liberties of humans, including their own physical ability to do wrong and face the consequences, a disturbing implication.
Studies consistently show no measurable competition when fewer than 5 companies hold more than a combined 70% of market share, there simply isn't enough competitive force to push supply and demand to regulate prices. What you are talking about is nothing more than an extreme fringe.
And our modern economic models that take into consideration imperfect competition, game theory, complex systems theory do profoundly well at predicting what will happen even along several year time spans. You are objectively wrong.
We have studies that show there is no market competition with fewer than 5 choices holding more than 70% of market share. Freedom and choices are a lot more limited than you are imagining, both theoretically and practically. Which is why consumer survey's showed that 85% of consumers preferred low gloss/matte screens but over 95% of screens made were high gloss, a problem that has existed for MUCH too long.
I take several nootropics that have side effects of fighting substance dependence and addictive behaviors, just by coincidence. I'm not addicted to food. I only eat when I'm hungry, and generally only enough to get a satisfied feeling out of my stomach. But my genetic bar must be set far higher than most for that level, because it takes a lot more than it should to get there, even eating slowly. I can, and have, radically changed most of my behavior patterns in life. I've meditated, become more productive, changed wide areas of my lifestyle, but it doesn't change that genetic set point for weight and appetite. I could be hungry constantly, but then I couldn't focus, would lose my job, my apartment, and lose weight by being homeless, but I'm not liking that option. I also don't keep junk food in the house, I don't eat it at all, haven't in years. Hasn't made a difference.